Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

Comments? Ike?

$1k No Limit Hold'em w/Rebuys
I played the rebuy event yesterday and managed to get deep once again. My day started out pretty steady and solid, with me slowing chipping up from our starting stack, and up to about a high of 35k. From there I didn't have too much go on at all, until my last couple of hands. Pay attention my friends, as we are going to have some examples of what NOT to do...


I had been playing all day, but had just suffered a recent backslide, back down to about 23k. Then, with blinds of 400-800, I was lucky enough to pick up KK on the button, and brought it in for my normal raise of 2500 chips. I then heard the magic words, "all-in", from my opponent to the left of me. The big blind folded and I obviously called. The kid was this Issac Haxton character, who apparently had some success in the Bahamas this year. He sheepishly flipped up his A10, and doubled me up, as he wasn't able to spike an Ace on me. It was a bit of an aggressive play, and certainly one where he would never get action from a hand he had beat, but would always get it where he was crushed.


At any rate, I was stoked and up to just under 50k. Sadly, for me, it would only last one hand, as I immediately picked up99 on the next hand. I brought it in for my normal raise, and Haxton again moved all of his chips in the middle. This was obviously a much tougher call, but I decided if he was going to make a play like his previous one, then he might just be silly enough to do another rash play. I called and he flipped up his KJ, again, rather sheepishly. I had caught in another bad play, but this one left him still in race...


People, when you lose a big pot with a bad move, don't compound the mistake by rushing into another huge pot while everyone is going to think that you are steaming. Haxton did just this, and I was surprised as you don't typically expect players whose names you have heard to make moves this amateurish.

I digress,...unfortunately for me though, despite the poor quality of the play, Haxton was rewarded when he spiked a King on the turn. Even though it happened to work this time, you really should use it as an example of what not to do, as you are always going to be played with more after losing a big pot, not less. Make sure that you have the goods...

Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

Sounds like a couple of pretty standard re-steals to me. Sebok comes off as pretty whiny.

The only reason these re-raises might not have been good plays is Sebok is pretty nitty from what I know, so he might be a little less likely to be raising light in late position. Although I guess that might be a reason to try to push him off a hand...

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
.... I decided if he was going to make a play like his previous one, then he might just be silly enough to do another rash play. I called and he flipped up his KJ...


People, when you lose a big pot with a bad move, don't compound the mistake by rushing into another huge pot while everyone is going to think that you are steaming. Haxton did just this, and I was surprised as you don't typically expect players whose names you have heard to make moves this amateurish.


[/ QUOTE ]

So he doesn't expect someone whose name he has heard of to make a play like this but then calls anyway. Makes sense to me.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

The fact that he talks about how bad the KJ shove was, says 99 was a close call, and doesn't mention effective stack sizes pretty much says it all. He's a clown.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he talks about how bad the KJ shove was, says 99 was a close call, and doesn't mention effective stack sizes pretty much says it all. He's a clown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he talks about how bad the KJ shove was, says 99 was a close call, and doesn't mention effective stack sizes pretty much says it all. He's a clown.

[/ QUOTE ]

How deep were you when you made these re-steals?

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

I covered and effective stacks were about 23k the first time. The second time he covered and I think I had about 25k but it might have been less.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

he's trashing you on their radio show too

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

ike,

you're lucky you've been on tv, else i'd be forced to believe sebok and assume your clownitude.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

Heads up match?

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

i will force this into action

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

isnt he right that both are a little deep to be making light resteals? I mean he obviously doesnt get it cause he thinks you think your getting money in to win an all in, when you just want to chip up w/ no SD, but 30 BB shoves on 3x raises... seems deep to me

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Heads up match for rolls?

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

Well, ike took into account that Sebok might be making a move on the blinds and trying to take them down without seeing a flop. With what range of hands does Sebok call with on that first hand? I doubt Sebok calls with anything worse than jacks or ace-king (maybe tens or ace-queen). Sebok's range is much wider than that when raising from the CO. If Sebok folds often enough (which he probably does), then it could be profitable in the long run.

Not as big of a fan of the second one though. When you get caught up on the first hand, the jig is up. Sebok's range when calling you in that situation will probably widen now that he's seen that. That was proven when he called with the nines.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, ike took into account that Sebok might be making a move on the blinds and trying to take them down without seeing a flop. With what range of hands does Sebok call with on that first hand? I doubt Sebok calls with anything worse than jacks or ace-king (maybe tens or ace-queen). Sebok's range is much wider than that when raising from the CO. If Sebok folds often enough (which he probably does), then it could be profitable in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't a re-raise to about 7000 be just as effective? If Sebok was trying to steal with garbage, he'd fold to that.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

I've watched Sebok tell his friends about hands I've observed/participated in where he played for stacks, and he couldn't even get the preflop/flop action right. I'm not talking bet sizes- he simply can't recollect the action correctly. I have no confidence in his estimation of effective stacks/blind levels.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

The second one is a pretty large resteal to call with 99. Unless he is including 33 in the range.

I also think KJ is a bad resteal hand here on an overbet, especially given the previous hand's action.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
isnt he right that both are a little deep to be making light resteals?

[/ QUOTE ]No, and AT vs a Button raise isn't really "light" anyway unless Sebok is really nitty.

The upper limit for a re-steal from me is 10x a standard raise, which is just about how deep they were.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

whatevskis keep [censored] on him.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
The second one is a pretty large resteal to call with 99. Unless he is including 33 in the range.

I also think KJ is a bad resteal hand here on an overbet, especially given the previous hand's action.

[/ QUOTE ]I think the push with KJ was a lot better than the call with 99. Obviously Sebok was a good enough player to realize that he was in a coin flip situation and call off his stack since Ike never has TT+ here. (Yes, this is sarcasm)

As for the timing, well I think the tendency is not for players to make a re-steal right after getting caught in one, so Sebok might give Ike more credit for a hand. Of course, he might just think Ike is steaming, which I guess is what happened. However, KJ is not bad at all against Sebok's calling range (especially if he'll call with 99), and he should have a lot of fold equity against Sebok's open raising range.

I do hate it when players call in a coinflip situation and then berate the other player when they lose/win (either: "you donky- I can't believe you took my chips" or "haha, thanks for the chips you donk"). Because calling in a coinflip with no fold equity is obviously >EV than pushing a coinflip with fold equity. (Again with more sarcasm, wich I'm am noting just because it doesn't translate will into written word).

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

op, nice post.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he talks about how bad the KJ shove was, says 99 was a close call, and doesn't mention effective stack sizes pretty much says it all. He's a clown.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont need to read the whole thread or know all the details. Ike plays v v good. I didnt know much about sebok, but this helps.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

lol what a joke

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

agressive call.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a couple of pretty standard re-steals to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they both had 50K at 400-800 then in the 2nd hand his re-steal is for 60 BBs, and pretty awful.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
op, nice post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know if youre being sarcastic or not. My apologies if it didnt meet your criteria. I was just interested in what everyone(esp. Ike) thought of his post.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a couple of pretty standard re-steals to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they both had 50K at 400-800 then in the 2nd hand his re-steal is for 60 BBs, and pretty awful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, Ike already said eff. stacks both times were 23-25kish

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a couple of pretty standard re-steals to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they both had 50K at 400-800 then in the 2nd hand his re-steal is for 60 BBs, and pretty awful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, Ike already said eff. stacks both times were 23-25kish

[/ QUOTE ]
Hence the word "if".

But when Sebok said:
[ QUOTE ]
At any rate, I was stoked and up to just under 50k. Sadly, for me, it would only last one hand

[/ QUOTE ]
I took the "only lasting one hand" thing to mean he was out on that hand, which would mean they both had 50K.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

He just went back down to approximately where he started (20-25k-ish) after the 2nd hand.

The way I read it:
1st Hand:
Sebok - 23k
Ike - 48k

2nd Hand:
Sebok - 46k
Ike - 25k

Dust Settles:
Sebok - 21k and pissed off
Ike - 50k

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

haha I was at this table. It was the funniest thing to see Sebok just sit there all whinny after losing the flip.

Obviously both plays are very standard.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

Oh yah and the fact that he says calling with 99 there is a tough decision is pretty funny.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

Could he pick a more boring decision to berate?

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
haha I was at this table. It was the funniest thing to see Sebok just sit there all whinny after losing the flip.

Obviously both plays are very standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya it was pretty funny. Like one orbit later he looks over at me, still really pissed off, and says something like "You're that Haxton guy, right?" I said "Yah, you're that Sebok guy right?" He did not get less pissed.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

Sebok has a tendency to berate plays he doesn't fully understand for a variety of reasons.

Can anyone shed some light on how well Sebok actually plays overall?

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

Meh, I really enjoy his radio show. I don't really listen for the poker strategy content though. He is a pretty funny guy.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sebok has a tendency to berate plays he doesn't fully understand for a variety of reasons.

Can anyone shed some light on how well Sebok actually plays overall?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lifetime major tournament winnings of $1.3 million. 5 WSOP cashes this year.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sebok has a tendency to berate plays he doesn't fully understand for a variety of reasons.

Can anyone shed some light on how well Sebok actually plays overall?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lifetime major tournament winnings of $1.3 million. 5 WSOP cashes this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we divide this by how many tournaments he's played/how much he's spent on buyins?

Seems like he's nitted his way (barely) into the money a few WSOP events thus far. I'm not terribly impressed since I imagine he's played close to 20 events (just a guess, but why wouldn't he have?)

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

5 of 20 cashes not impressive? And gotten really unlucky in a couple of them super deep? LOL.

Devo

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

[ QUOTE ]
5 of 20 cashes not impressive? And gotten really unlucky in a couple of them super deep? LOL.

Devo

[/ QUOTE ]

5 out of 20 WSOP cashes on it's own merits is most certainly not "terribly impressive" (note the modifier "terribly"). Do you disagree? A lot of "cashes" involve a little more than getting your buy-in back. I'd need more information before giving Sebok any credit for being a solid tourney player.

I'd also still like someone to give a rough guess as to his total tourney buy-ins over the last few years. He's probably (heck, almost certainly) a winning player, but I doubt he would even be worth talking about if he didn't have a famous papa.

Re: Joe Seboks blog post - Re: Ikes play
 

Take a closer look at his results, Joe is quite successful and accomplished in tournaments. You might not like the way he handled or interpreted these hands vs Ike, but suggesting he's not a winning tournament player is ridiculous.

Edited to add: He'd be at least as famous as Jared Hamby, with or without the Greenstein connection.